The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment, underscored the stringent threshold for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court held that unless allegations in a charge sheet, even if taken at face value, fail to disclose a prima facie offence, proceedings cannot be quashed. This judgment reinforces the principle that inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, only in the rarest of rare cases where no offence is made out.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from a complex property dispute involving multiple litigations spanning nearly two decades. The petitioner, Tellamekala Rama Rao, purchased a house property from Gonuguntla Seshaih (Respondent No. 3/A1) under a Registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2015 for a consideration of Rs. 25,03,000. However, the property was subject to prior litigation, including a decree in favour of Gali Srinivasa Reddy (Respondent No. 2/de facto complainant) in O.S. No. 347 of 1997, which culminated in a court auction where the complainant was declared the highest bidder on 27.10.2004. Despite this, possession of the property was delivered to the complainant only on 05.08.2016, nearly a year after the petitioner’s purchase.
Key Facts
- 15.03.1996: Respondent No. 3/A1 availed a loan of Rs. 65,000 from Respondent No. 2/de facto complainant, executing a promissory note.
- 18.02.1999: O.S. No. 347 of 1997 (filed by Respondent No. 2) was decreed in his favour for recovery of Rs. 79,625.
- 27.10.2004: The property (156 sq. yards at Door No. 4-19-111/1, Vikas Nagar, Guntur) was auctioned in E.P. No. 293 of 2000, with Respondent No. 2 emerging as the highest bidder.
- 03.03.2003: O.S. No. 307 of 1998 (filed by the wife and sons of Respondent No. 3/A1 for partition) was decreed, allotting the property to the minor sons of Respondent No. 3/A1.
- 23.09.2015: Appeal Suit No. 30 of 2014 (filed by Respondent No. 3/A1 against the decree in O.S. No. 347 of 1997) was dismissed.
- 30.09.2015: Petitioner purchased the property from Respondent No. 3/A1 under Registered Sale Deed No. 6079/2015.
- 25.11.2015: Petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 65,00,000 from Kotak Mahindra Bank by mortgaging the property (Document No. 7219/2015).
- 05.08.2016: Executing Court delivered possession of the property to Respondent No. 2/de facto complainant.
- 22.12.2016: Respondent No. 2 filed a police complaint, leading to Crime No. 392 of 2016 under Sections 468, 470, and 420 read with 34 IPC.
- Procedural History:
- Charge Sheet filed: The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 55 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Railways, Guntur.
- 17.06.2026: Present Criminal Petition No. 980 of 2023 filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the charge sheet.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the charge sheet in C.C. No. 55 of 2020, contending that the allegations did not prima facie constitute an offence against him. He argued that he was a bona fide purchaser and that the complainant’s delay in seeking possession indicated mala fide intent.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the allegations in the charge sheet, even if accepted in their entirety, prima facie constituted an offence under Sections 420, 468, and 470 IPC against the petitioner. Specifically, the Court had to determine:
- Whether the petitioner’s purchase of the property and subsequent mortgage constituted cheating under Section 420 IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s actions amounted to forgery under Sections 468 and 470 IPC.
- Whether the charge sheet disclosed a prima facie case warranting continuation of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- No Prima Facie Offence: The allegations in the charge sheet, even if taken at face value, did not disclose any offence against the petitioner. The complainant’s delay in seeking possession (till 2016) indicated mala fide intent.
- Bona Fide Purchaser: The petitioner purchased the property under a Registered Sale Deed dated 30.09.2015 and availed a bank loan after verifying the documents. The Encumbrance Certificate showed the property in the name of Respondent No. 3/A1 at the time of purchase.
- No Deception: There was no allegation that the petitioner made any false representation to the complainant or induced him to part with property or money.
- Judicial Precedents: Relied on Mohammed Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) to argue that the petitioner, as a purchaser, could not be held liable for cheating unless he deceived the complainant. Also cited Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) to contend that forgery requires the accused to be the maker of the false document.
For the Respondent/Complainant
- Dishonest Intention: The petitioner and Respondent No. 3/A1 conspired to sell the property despite knowing it was subject to litigation and court auction. The Sale Deed dated 30.09.2015 was executed with dishonest intent to defeat the complainant’s claim.
- Overt Acts: The petitioner’s actions, including availing a bank loan and filing a declaratory suit (O.S. No. 479 of 2016), demonstrated his knowledge of the dispute and intent to cheat.
- Disputed Questions of Fact: The allegations involved disputed questions of fact that could not be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that quashing of proceedings should be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases. It relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal (AIR 1992 SC 604), which enumerates categories where such power may be invoked
